Let’s stop and hypothesize for a minute.  Let's say your MasterCard is maxed out.  So is your Visa.  Same with the Discover Card.  You have a car payment you can't afford.  Your mortgage is well beyond your means.  You're barely making the payments.  If you continue to make the minimum payment it will take decades to pay off with the vast majority going to interest.  There is no end in sight.  So what do you do? 

Well if you're Dave Obey, you don't worry about small technicalities like losing your home or filing for bankruptcy.  You simply ask for a higher credit limit.  Looks like crazy Dave is at it again.  From the Examiner:

------------------------------------------

The International Business Times has just reported that House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, says Congress may need to raise the U.S. federal debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion. 

“It is December,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey said, “we don’t really have a choice. The bill’s already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it,” he added. 

By “pay it”, Obey means borrow for it. 

Obey’s words perfectly encapsulate what has become the government’s chief fiscal operating principle: spend first, figure out where the money is going to come from later.

 But while the American government may be in the habit of kicking into the future the question of how it can pay its bills, other nations are beginning to ask America this very question. 

Last month President Obama visited China and found Chinese officials taking a keen interest in his healthcare reform plans. The Chinese’s interest in healthcare did not centre around the usual questions that have been preoccupying Americans. Instead, one participant in the talks recalled, “They wanted to know, in painstaking detail, how the health care plan would affect the deficit...” 

It is not surprising that China should take more of an interest than most Americans in this crucial question. After all, the United States already owes China two Trillion dollars and could be forced to beg for at least half that much again if Obama’s health care promises are realized. “Like any banker,” the NYT reported, “they wanted evidence that the United States had a plan to pay them back.” 

------------------------------------------  

Obey and Obama have hit the accelerator on this big debt train and seem bound and determined to charge ahead full speed whether there is track laid ahead or not. Ever wonder where the government gets money after it has already taken ours?  Well of course, it borrows.  How much does it borrow?  How much do we owe? 

------------------------------------------ 

Spending as if there is no tomorrow 

Obama’s curious method for correcting his predecessors’ mistakes has been to perpetuate their disastrous policies to an unprecedented extreme. In an attempt to stimulate the economy out of the recession (a recession caused, principally, by so much unpayble debt), Obama borrowed more federal funds than any President in the nation’s history. Hardly had he settled into the White House when he signed two new bills, the $787B stimulus and the $410B omnibus, which together equal the $1.2T deficit he "inherited." Consequently, when the 2009 fiscal year finally ended this October, America had run up an all time record deficit of $1.58 trillion - 3.4 times the $459B deficit of 2008, and 10 times the $160B deficit of 2007. 

The impulse behind Obama’s borrowing spree is an economic theory known as Keynesianism. John Maynard Keynes (1883 –1946) argued that a failing economy could be revived by governments injecting money into it. As the new money began circulating, Keynes theorized, it would reach people who would spend it, creating economic growth and more revenue for the state coffers. 

Selling ourselves into slavery 

Keynesianism has an air of plausibility about it until we stop to ask where the money actually comes from that government so generously pumps into the economy. The answer, of course, is that it can only come from debt. However, given the inflationary implications of debt (see section below on how the Government gets money), even this indirectly comes out of the pockets of citizens in the form of currency devaluation. 

If the amount of money that the government desires exceeds the amount that American banks are willing to loan, then the government will go, hat in hand, to foreign banks. This is exactly what the Obama and Bush administrations have done, with the result that China and other foreign holders of America’s national debt are owed a combined total of about $3.3 trillion. Just to put this problem in perspective, America’s national debt is larger than the total economies of China, the United Kingdom, and Australia combined and is quickly approaching or exceeding the USA's 14 trillion GDP. (It appears less than that in charts, because the government has been cooking the books since the Clinton Administration. They are not counting Social Security and Medicare obligations as part of the debt.) If the pattern continues over the next decade, the government will borrow approximately $1.72 million every minute. 

The result is essentially that the American government has sold its people into slavery. Those who will be hit the hardest with this debt servitude are those future generations of Americans who will be crippled by their obligation to service the interest on such an extortionate debt. But it is not just the burden to pay the debt that will cripple successive generations. They will also face the much more terrifying prospect of holding a devalued currency, since devaluation is always the result of pumping so much debt-money into the economy over long periods of time.

------------------------------------------ 

The article is a great read, even if it is a bit long.  Read the whole thing and educate yourself.  Politicians hate educated voters.  

There are few things that get under my skin more than playing politics with Soldier's lives.  Dave Obey (D-WI) told ABC news that he has no problem with it.

---------------------------------------------

“The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy." "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it." Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

---------------------------------------------

  Obey’s strategy is the same as President Obama’s.  They are on a mission to drive down support by making the war as drawn-out and unattractive as possible.  It has been over 3 months since General McChrystal asked for additional troops, yet only now has Obama done anything to act on his request.  Many are now calling Obama the “Ditherer in Chief” for his indecisiveness.  And now Dave Obey has decided to jump on board the Democrat’s anti-war bandwagon and start driving down support for the war even further.  Obey, like many Democrats, is quick to play the Vietnam card in regards to Afghanistan.  Unfortunately Obey uses a very different American history to draw his conclusion (judging by his “ain't going to be no money for nothing” grammar it’s starting to look like he skipped a few grades in school).  

 -------------------------------------------

Via Hotair:

Obey tells ABC that wars always end progressive agendas:Such a high war cost, he warns, will make it impossible to pay for any of Obama’s major domestic initiatives.  “That’s what happened with the Vietnam War, which wiped out [President Lyndon Johnson's social program] the Great Society,” Obey said. “That’s what happened with the Korean War, which wiped out Harry Truman’s Square Deal. That’s what happened with the end of the progressive movement before the ’20s when we went into World War I. In each case, the cost of those wars shut off our ability to pay for anything else.

”There is so much foolishness in this statement that’s almost impossible to unpack it all.  But I’ll try:

-  So far, Obey and his Democratic allies haven’t shown how they will pay for Obama’s domestic initiatives now, even without any further war funding.  Every single program they’ve proposed will add to the deficit, including Obey’s Porkulus bill.
-  The Great Society programs didn’t end with the Vietnam War.  We still have them around, especially Medicare, which has grown massively since LBJ.  We only curtailed LBJ’s welfare program in the mid-90s because of its stultifying effects and runaway costs, and we weren’t in a shooting war when we did it.  What program does Obey think got cut from LBJ’s agenda?
-  We went into World War I in 1917, and came out in 1919.  “Before the ’20s” sounds as though Obey thinks the war was in that decade, but even without that, the progressive agenda had plenty of time (and prosperity) in that decade to succeed if people wanted it.  It died of its own accord, not because of war.
-  And for that matter, did World War II end the New Deal?  We still have FDR’s stamp all over federal government.
---------------------------------

  Let’s be very clear about something: this is not about the money.  Obey has absolutely no problem spending other people’s money on his pet government projects, including steering a couple billion to his own son.  His $787 billion “stimulus” has been an epic failure that will burden generations to come with massive debt.  He had no problem with millions of dollars in pork in his Stimulus Bill.  In fact, as he put it in an interview with NPR (and has Sean Duffy for Congress has been hammering away on him) he simply said “So what?”    He only cares when it fits his politics. Obey’s actions have nothing to do with what is best for America and everything to do with his liberal ideology.

Soldiers are not political pawns Mr. Obey.  Your disregard for our Soldier’s lives and our national defense is absolutely disgusting and irreprehensible.  You are out of touch with needs of Wisconsin and our great nation as a whole. 

I don't like posting the same stuff as everyone else, but this is too good not to.  If there is one video you take time out of your day to watch, make it this one.



This pretty much echoes the same thing I've been asking all along. How do you save money by spending money? It reminds me of the typical college advice for getting rid of a hangover (start drinking again). Any bets CNN will fact-check this SNL skit too?

I meant to post this a few days ago, but didn't get around to it. Apparently the stimulus plan by President Obama and Congressman Dave Obey isn't quite as stimulating for Wisconsin as they let on.  From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Don't count on stimulus job tally

A stimulus job report that says more than 10,000 jobs were saved or created in Wisconsin is rife with errors, double counting and inflated numbers based more on satisfying federal formulas than creating real jobs, a Journal Sentinel review has found.

In one case, five jobs were mistakenly listed as 50 - and then counted twice. In another, pay raises to workers were listed as saving more than 100 jobs. And in another, jobs were listed as saved even though the money had not been received and no work on the project had begun.

The problems mirror those surfacing around the country, as the federal numbers claiming 640,000 jobs created or saved by stimulus money are being scrutinized.

Among the Journal Sentinel's findings:

Double-counted jobs: About $7.3 million of federal money will flow to the Parkland Sanitary District in Douglas County to replace its sewer system, a project listed as creating or saving 100 jobs even though work won't start until this spring, federal recovery data shows.

But that number is inflated by 95 jobs, Parkland Sanitary District treasurer Eric Shaffer admitted.

When reporting to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's online reporting system, Schaffer meant to type "5" but mistakenly added a zero - and that 50-job figure appears twice in the federal data because it was a combined grant and loan. He tried to correct the error, but was told it was too late for the federal reporting deadline.

"We are volunteers, and we made a mistake," Shaffer said. "It was a simple typographical error, and we tried to fix it. Now that we understand the system, it will be much easier."

Meanwhile, three other Wisconsin towns reported jobs on combined federal loans and grants that were counted twice, doubling their totals from 35 to 70 jobs, records show.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make sure you read the whole thing. Ed Morrissey from Hotair chimes in:

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to love the example of the Parkland Sanitary District data being part of the White House claims.  They took credit for 100 jobs that don’t even exist, at least 95 of which they overstated when the jobs really do begin.  They took a 1900% markup on five phantom jobs — for a sewage project.  If anyone doubted that the White House numbers were crap, this should utterly convince them.

More phantom jobs exist in Wisconsin’s data, all of it from contracts given directly from the federal government.  One contractor claimed to have saved 24 jobs without receiving any money at all for that project, which may be the most efficient use of government funds in US history.  Five low-income housing projects reported saving 38 jobs through renter’s assistance, even though it saved — at best — five jobs.  It turns out that the money came from a HUD grant that had nothing to do with job creation.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Its a great demonstration of what a giant scam the entire "saved and created" jobs count is.  It's not possible to actually tally how many jobs have been "saved and created" since there is no indicator on the economy to gauge such results. Which is the whole reason why spending cheerleaders like Dave Obey are quick to tout it because they know its nearly impossible to prove otherwise.

It's important not to forget that as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Dave Obey is one of the main individuals responsible for the $787 billion epic disaster:

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defense and No Apologies From Author of Fiscal Bill

WASHINGTON — When House Republicans look at the $825 billion economic package headed toward a vote this week, they do not see President Obama. To them, the bill personifies Representative David R. Obey, the prickly Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and has spent 40 years in Congress as a champion of federal spending.

Included in the package is $30 billion to subsidize health insurance for those who lose their jobs, $20 billion to accelerate new health care information technology, $1 billion to renovate community health centers, $600 million to train health care workers, $15 billion to increase college Pell Grants and $4 billion to help communities buy and improve distressed properties.

Indeed, it was Mr. Obey, the third-most-senior member of the House, who, in large measure, shaped the bill, in concert with other House Democratic leaders. And though Mr. Obama has embraced the bill, not a single House Republican has lent it support. The president himself is scheduled to visit Capitol Hill on Tuesday to try to address Republican concerns that Mr. Obey and others are using the legislation to push vast amounts of money into health care and other favored initiatives.

“It is pretty obvious we are funding the chairman’s priorities,” said Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the senior Republican on the appropriations panel. Mr. Lewis described Mr. Obey as driven by a “pent-up desire to spend money in existing programs.”

But the plan is expected to pass with or without Republican support, and Mr. Obey makes no apologies for its contents. An essential part of responding to any economic crisis, he said, is looking out for those on the receiving end of the turmoil.

“You have to take into account the fact that there are certain people in this society getting crushed by this economy,” said Mr. Obey, whose work on the package left him worn down and struggling to regain his voice. “They lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance, they lose their ability to keep their kids in college.

“If you didn’t have two million additional people out of work, you wouldn’t have to be looking for ways to help them. What the hell do you do if the economy goes to hell and two or three or four million more people are out of work?”

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, sees it differently. “This is 1936 economics,” Mr. Ryan said. “But it reflects David’s ideology and his economic doctrine. They took everything in their file cabinet that has been piling up for 100 years, threw it in this bill and called it economic stimulus.”

Mr. Obey, 70, the product of a Catholic blue-collar upbringing in Wausau, said that if he had sole ownership, he would have turned out a costlier measure with more health spending.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to put things in perspective, if the $787 billion was divvied up amongst the residents of Wisconsin, each man, woman, and child would receive $139,837.35. That buys a lot of beer and cheese.  Yes, our beloved Congressman Obey is to blame for saddling the entire nation and generations to come with massive high-interest debt that will do absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.  And no, he doesn't feel the least bit sorry about it.  And why should he?  He managed to funnel $2.25 billion in funds to the National Park Service to reward his own son.  

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBEY'S PORK

 A top House Republican is demanding an investigation into whether the more than $2 billion for national parks in the House stimulus package is proper in light of the fact that the chief lobbyist for the National Parks Conservation Association is the son of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey.

NPCA is a major player in advocating for national parks funding, and its senior vice president for government affairs is Craig Obey, son of the Wisconsin Democrat who has long been his party's top Appropriations Committee member.

The money included in the stimulus bill that passed Mr. Obey's committee - $2.25 billion - was about equal to the National Park Service's total yearly budget, and would be a staggering increase and almost three times the $802 million that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved for park spending in its stimulus bill.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like it's time to send Dave Obey packing, and I'm not talking about a trip to Green Bay.  Wisconsin needs a better representatitive. 

I like how the mainstream media bragged up Hillary Clinton today in regards to the off-hand remark she made about Dick Cheney. They make it sound like she brazenly stood up to that "former criminal of a Vice President"and gave him what for. Here's how Reuters put it:

Asked about Cheney's request this week to declassify documents showing the "success" of some widely condemned, harsh interrogation techniques launched by ex-President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton had a caustic reply.

"It won't surprise you that I don't consider him (Cheney) a particularly reliable source," Clinton told the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee.

And that's where they cut the conversation off. No follow up regarding who she was talking to, no rebuttal, no nothing. I heard the live clip on the radio today, so I already knew what was said. But do you think I could find it on one MSM website? Just one? Nope. I had to go all the way to the Argentina Star to find it, and even they didn't get it completely right. Here's how the conversation really went.

Rohrabacher: "Are you in favour of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney has been requesting be released?"

Clinton: "Well, it will not surprise you that I do not consider him a particularly reliable source of information."

Rohrabacher: "Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question. ... Dick Cheney has asked that specific documents be declassified. ... I didn’t ask you what your opinion is of Dick Cheney and if you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?”

I guess the MSM were in a such a hurry they accidentally left the "shut your pie-hole Hillary and answer the question" remark out. Hey, whatever it takes to make a Democrat look better than a Republican , right? Its just another normal day in our biased liberal media.

I thought I would add the video so you could watch it for yourself. Fast forward to 4:10 to see the little tussle.



UPDATE:

I found the conversation at ABC News Blogs, who actually took their "don't speak ill of the Obama Administration" policy one step further: they deleted half of what Rohrabacher said. Here's how they think it should be written:

"Are you in favor of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney has been requesting be released?," asked Rep. Rohrbacher.

"Well, it won't surprise you, I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," responded Secretary Clinton to a smattering of laughter in the hearing room.

Congressman Rohrbacher appeared none too pleased and went at it again. "Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question," he said sternly.

"Congressman, I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it is in the best interest of our country and that is what the president believes and that is why he has taken the actions he did," said Clinton.

The funny thing is, even though ABC purposefully edited Rep. Rohrbacher's statement to make Hillary Clinton sound better, they still posted a video of the conversation for everyone to see. ABC's rather sad attempt at trying to hide the stern warning Hillary received made me think of a line from Forrest Gump.

"Are you crazy, or just plain stupid?"

Most of you have already heard about the blanket report on Right Wing Extremism issued by the Department of Homeland Security. For those who missed it, the report basically says anyone one who believes in limited government, the second amendment, lower taxes, secure borders, are anti-abortion, served in the military, wear blue jeans, or drive a rusty Chevrolet could be a right wing extremist. I spent 10 months in Iraq with the Minnesota Guard before losing my right arm to an Iranian Weapons Expert in Baghdad. As a proud Veteran, I take more than a little offense to this report.

Coincidentally, I was bouncing around from link to link last night, reading random stuff that happened when I was too young to know anything, and stumbled upon this lovely tidbit of information (4th paragraph from the bottom) involving Janet Napolitano when she served under Clinton back in 1996.

The BATF and U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano may have overlooked the weaknesses in the case against the Vipers because both were eager for some good press. Napolitano, a Clinton appointee, last January 1996 declined to seek search warrants requested by U.S. postal inspectors who were finishing a two-year child pornography sting operation. The inspectors, who had received 106 warrants with the help of other federal officials during the investigation, were surprised. They turned to Maricopa County officials, who obtained the warrants and made the arrests. A search of the prime Phoenix suspect's house yielded numerous photos and videotapes of children having sex with men, plus a confession that the suspect had sodomized numerous boys. The case became a public issue in May when a postal inspector appeared on ABC's 20/20 with a letter from Napolitano stating that she had refused to take the child pornography case because it unfairly targeted homosexual men. Perhaps she was right, but the case has generated local criticism and a Senate investigation.

So here were two known child molesters. This wasn't a "might be" situation. They weren't sitting outside gay bars searching people's cars, following people home, or wiretapping outspoken homosexuals simply for being homosexual. These were child molesters hurting innocent children. There was obviously enough evidence to obtain 106 warrants against these individuals previously, yet Janet Napolitano declined because she felt it would be unfairly targeting homosexuals.

So let me see if I have this straight. According to Janet Napolitano, it is wrong to target known child molesters if they are homosexuals, but it is ok to target anyone who is basically right leaning in their ideology.

Oh, I get it! This is about politics!

I've already touched on our current and future tax situation in several other posts. This video sums things up even better. (credit to hotair for the video)

Obama is showing the world how well he works with others, and what he really thinks of private business. We are moving closer and closer to a government run, government owned society where the government tells us what we can and cannot have or earn.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees – and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation, and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

“The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had served bread along with the water,” says a person who attended the meeting. “The signal from Obama’s body language and demeanor was, ‘I’m the president, and you’re not.’”…

The president spoke of public outrage over the high flying executive lifestyle. “The anger gentlemen, is real,” Obama said. He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional and balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.

In other words, "If you don't take this bottle of KY and bend over, we're going to stir up another angry mob and throw you to them." Slublog sums it up:

"So let me see if I’ve got this right. The Democrats helped cause the crisis through bad policy, fanned the flames of outrage against CEOs and Wall Street and are now saying they’re the only ones who can protect the CEOs from all of those angry people out there.”

Hotair adds:

Anyone recognize the phrase “the anger is real,” though? The last time Obama used it was in his speech on race to back off all the haters who thought, inexplicably, that a would-be president should have piped up about Reverend Wright sometime in the course of 20 years. Evidently it’s a favorite formulation when he wants to lean on his audience. In which case, if he’s so worried about pitchforks, instead of creepily exploiting the threat of mob violence to centralize the economy, how about our modern-day Lincoln gives a speech asking Americans to cool off before bailout fatigue leads to someone getting killed? After all, the anger really is real.

You know all those retroactive AIG Taxes they threatened to pass? They quietly let them die. Americans need to start calling Obama's bluff and stand up to his class warfare agenda. Remember, this is all about politics. If any of this were an actual legal matter, half of the house and senate would be in jail.